I'm fairly certain I've previously expressed my general dislike for "one-shots" or "mini-campaigns." To be clear, my dislike isn’t absolute, but I rarely seek them out. When I do participate in them, I often come away slightly unsatisfied. One of the greatest joys of roleplaying games, at least for me, lies in the continuity of a long campaign: the way characters grow, change, and accumulate history over time; how a setting deepens and acquires texture; how throwaway details from early sessions suddenly take on new meaning months (or even years) later. If given the chance, I prefer to settle in, to put down roots, and see what emerges over the long haul. That’s usually my goal when I sit down at the table with friends. I want a campaign, not a fling.
And yet ...
Over the past few years, I've come to appreciate the distinct pleasures of convention games: those four-hour sessions with a group of strangers that begin and end in a single afternoon or evening. I had a great time at last year's Gamehole Con and came away from several sessions feeling energized and inspired. That’s part of the reason I’m looking forward to signing up for more this year. On paper, con games are the antithesis of what I usually look for in roleplaying. They’re self-contained, focused, and impermanent. Once the session is over, it’s over. So why don’t they leave me with the same hollow feeling that a short-lived home campaign often does?
While I’m not above hypocrisy, I think I have a good sense of why I enjoy con games more than I would have expected.
Playing a game at a convention is, for me, a form of tourism. I show up, meet new people, and explore a small slice of a game or setting with which I may not be familiar. It’s a snapshot. There’s no illusion of permanence, no lingering sense of “what might have been.” The characters might be memorable and the play enjoyable, but everyone understands from the outset that this is a limited-time engagement. It’s a visit, not a move.
A home campaign with friends, by contrast, is more like choosing to live somewhere. There’s an implicit commitment. We’re investing in something meant to last. That shared commitment changes everything. When I play with friends, I generally don’t want the game to have an expiration date. I want room to build, to wander, to return to familiar locations, to interact with recurring NPCs, to watch the slow accretion of detail and consequence. A one-off in that context feels like a house without a foundation –furnished, perhaps, for a party, but not built for living in.
There’s also a difference in ambition. A convention game rarely tries to be more than it is. It knows its limits and, when well-run, delivers something satisfying within them. A one-shot at home, on the other hand, often aspires to be a mini-campaign or the seed of something larger, but without the time to grow into either. The result is frequently a sense of missed potential. The game ends just as things are getting interesting. I experienced this recently during a game of Dragonbane that one of my Dolmenwood players refereed for us. It was fun but also a little bit frustrating: a glimpse of something promising that ended too soon.
None of this is meant as a criticism of short-form RPG play. Many people love one-shots and mini-campaigns and probably with good reason. For me, though, the pleasure of roleplaying originates elsewhere. I want to stay, not merely pass through. I want to know the locals, not just see the sights.
Jim Hodges---
ReplyDeleteJust curious, what's the prevailing point of view on gaming via Zoom? (Or the equivalent.) You know, as a means of getting old friends who now live far apart together again, or matching up gamers with shared interests who are geographically separated. IMHO it's not ideal but to me it feels like the days of, "Bring a snack and meet at Chad's basement to role play til midnight "will never come again, so is it possible to find a semblance of old school joy by meeting up to try an old school campaign online? Anyone made this work?
I have never reconvened a former group for online play, but all I do these days is online play.
DeleteI don't know if there's a prevailing view, but I do think a lot more of us became comfortable with online gaming via Zoom/Google Meet/Discord, etc. in the aftermath of the pandemic lockdowns.
DeleteTrue, the pandemic helped, but I started online gaming in December 2016 as a way to get back into gaming after kids without having to leave my wife at home with the kids.
DeleteAs a busy family man, online gaming has been the solution to finding time to game.
Me too. My House of Worms campaign began in March 2015 and I first tried my hand at online gaming several years before that.
DeleteAll this does make me curious: what are people's favorite ways to play TTRPG's online currently ? Zoom ? Microsoft Teams ? Discord ? VTT's like Roll20 ? Foundry ? Fantasy Grounds ? Owlbear Rodeo ?
DeleteMy group got together after decades. Two guys in California, two in Alabama, and the GM in Texas there was no way to play in person. We started on Zoom but it didn't really do it for us. We quickly moved to Roll20 which was free, and then a few sessions later I paid to get the dynamic lighting which was somewhat cheap. We haven't looked back since.
DeleteI play on Roll20. The virtual table top works well, and the number of players on the platform serves as my best new player recruiting tool. I got my start though with Google Video Chat with Google+ as recruiting, but we quickly moved to Roll20 (and immediately started recruiting there). Roll20 recruiting has even worked for my college friend's home brew game (never published). We use Google Meet for the audio though since Roll20 has had issues with that (we also used Discord for awhile until that became painful - so now I have a paid Google account so we don't have Google Meet limitations).
DeleteThanks @Ruprecht and @Frank for the feedback. In part because my current group is about to either fall apart or go digital as the DM is moving to another city, so I might be looking at an online experience soon-ish.
DeleteI recently returned from North Texas RPG Con. I made it a point to ask others how often they actually play RPGs. Over the years, at both GaryCon and NTRPGCon (and elsewhere), I’ve repeatedly heard the same thing from fellow attendees: “I only get to play at conventions.” These aren’t casual fans, mind you. These are people who take time off work, spend hundreds of dollars, and travel sometimes across the country to attend gaming conventions. These are folks who have clearly maintained a lifelong interest in tabletop RPGs. Almost all, since childhood. And yet, many of them don’t play regularly at all.
ReplyDeleteThat begs the question, why? So I asked. The most common answers: “I can’t find a group,” or more often, “I can’t find the kind of group I want.” In almost every case, this meant they were uninterested in 5E or newer games and were looking instead for classic D&D, OSR, or similar systems. In other words, the type of game they wanted to play just isn’t popular in their local scene, and they’re not interested in settling for something else, like playing online.
This leads me to believe that a significant portion of old school RPG fans, maybe even a majority, are now engaging with the hobby primarily as tourists. They remain emotionally and intellectually invested in the games of their youth, they buy zines and modules, they post online, they attend cons, but they don’t actually play much. And when they do, it’s fleeting: a handful of sessions once a year, surrounded by like-minded enthusiasts in a temporary setting.
This has profound implications for the direction of the hobby and the market. It suggests that much of the creative output in the OSR scene is not being written for regular weekly campaigns, but instead for one-shots, con play, or just plain reading. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Many of us enjoy reading modules for inspiration, nostalgia, or as an exercise in design. But modules written for reading tend to have different priorities like denser writing, more “wow” factor per room, less attention to pacing or campaign integration. The structure often shifts toward self-contained spectacle rather than slow-burn exploration.
The result is a subtle but important drift in tone and purpose. Games are increasingly designed for maximum immediate engagement, because they’re being consumed in isolated, infrequent sessions. And that may be fine if you’re playing one dungeon every June in a hotel ballroom. But it’s a very different experience than sitting down week after week, slowly unearthing secrets, clearing lairs, and mapping dungeons hex by hex.
So when we talk about the “OSR” today, we may need to distinguish more clearly between two tracks: the active locals, still playing in regular groups like it’s 1981, and the hobbyist tourists. deeply engaged, but largely as spectators or occasional participants. The materials, the expectations, and the design philosophy are starting to reflect that divide.
Hmm, the OSR content I've been picking up has mostly been aimed at getting it to the table as part of an ongoing campaign or to drive an ongoing campaign.
DeleteI have seen con reports from plenty of folks who have regular games but also go to cons.
But there definitely are those who can't seem to find a way to play regularly. I often wonder how much effort are they actually making? Granted, for a while, I bought into the D20 craze because that seemed to be the only way to get games going, yet during the early 2000s I also got a RuneQuest game going using the 1978 first edition and was able to recruit several players.
These days I do play online and have been able to run the games I want to run, though sometimes I feel like I'm struggling to find players. Yet the games keep running. It's even turning out to not be so bad being in Pacific Time Zone which early on seemed to be a drag. I now have a regular player from Singapore and have had players from Australia and New Zealand. Which is just darn cool.
IMO, I think we're seeing more RPG tourists from the 5e crowd. Why: Critical Role. That...show... has done more damage than good. It portrays an RPG session way over the top and theatrical, while the reality is quite the contrary. Now you have a bunch of people who've watched that show and think that's how it's done. It's nowhere near that.
DeleteCritical Roll has dumbed down D&D and RPGs and made it the Friends of RPGs. Matt Mercer and his smug punch-able face, railroading the group of players down the road. Yes, there are people who think that's normal for a gaming session.
Bitter? Yes. Jealous? No. I know I'm a way better DM he is.
@blackstone, I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but while I'm not a huge fan of Mercer, what exactly has he done to damage you or even affect your gaming?
DeleteSome people *do* play the game theatrically. I haven't and I'd feel pretty uncomfortable doing so but I just can't imagine why I'd be offended by people who enjoy that sort of game.
There's a vibrant OSR scene going on these days and while I haven't done the research I'd bet that the popularity of RPGs in general has only increased the number of people in that scene. Isn't it possible that someone could be drawn into the hobby by Critical role and end up preferring the sort of game you run? Maybe we should embrace that sort of person, even if they need a bit of mental realignment during the first session or two. "No, it's fine that you wore the costume, but the rest of us don't feel the need, and you also don't need to talk in an accent when you describe what your character is doing..." etc.
I'm not trying to single you out; you're clearly not the only one to express similar feelings, but when I read posts like yours it sounds like "YOU'RE HAVING FUN WRONG."
I don't need to explain myself. I have my reasons. If I sound like an old man yelling "damn kids get off my lawn", so be it.
DeleteYou might be right about the tourist thing but the vast majority of blogs about the OSR are from GMs running campaigns so they aren't writing for one-shots, they are just writing for a smaller market then potentially might be there if people could find groups.
DeleteSome VTTs have GMs that run games for others like a virtual convention (and sometimes for free), maybe that sort of thing will start to pick up and those tourists will join the fun on a more regular basis.
What Mercer is the Matt Mercer effect. His show creates an expectation which most DM's can't/won't live up to. That leads many new players to giving up actual play quickly.
DeleteI'm not so certain about all the presumed 'effects' of the 'Matt Mercer Effect'. I feel the people that like to watch 'Critical Role' (or similar shows) enjoy it like someone might enjoy watching professional sports; a fun experience, but quite a different experience from playing the same sport for themselves.
Delete"Punchable face" - ?!?
DeleteLabeling someone else "smug" and then in the next sentence declaring you're a "way better" DM...
And the stating you're above the need to explain yourself.
You might want to take a breath and read what you've written and ask yourself if this is how you want to be perceived.
@OP: I'm not sure it's either/or.
ReplyDeleteBack in the day, our regular group had lots of one-shots peppered among the games that were intended to be long and important campaigns.
Just as many of those would-be epic campaigns died unexpectedly, some of the scrappy one-shots surprisingly took root and flourished into long-running games due to popular demand.
Using one-shots as an easy, no-pressure way to gauge player and DM interest in new genres, characters and rules might be something to consider; like the pilot episode of a proposed new TV series.
And it would be more fun for players than a session zero. In a one-shot, you actually get to play.
It can also be fun once in a while to drive a character like a stolen car, which is encouraged by the ephemeral nature of con games.
ReplyDeleteThat is a great though. I share your interest for long campaigns.
ReplyDeleteConvention gaming definitely is a different thing, and worthy to play with different folks and try different things.
That said, there are a couple ways I like one shots outside conventions. One is to try out a new game, which I don't do so much anymore, but was worthy back when I used to buy new games to try out. The other is when key folks are missing for a game session, it can be fun to pull out something different to entertain those who were able to make it and were looking forward to an evening of gaming.
Something occurred to me reading your post, James. There's apparently an "epidemic" of loneliness in our society and particularly among men. I wonder if anyone has studied the ways that ongoing campaigns keep friendships going over long periods of time?
ReplyDeleteI know I've lost touch with a lot of friends with whom I used to game both at a table and online, when a campaign ended or a computer game aged out of relevance/support. I keep up with some of them through social media but it's really not the same thing as being present with them or hearing their voices in my headphones.
Does anyone know of studies on the topic?
That's a really good topic for discussion/investigation. I'm a firm believer in the power of RPGs to keep people socially connected, so this is something I find worthy of further thought.
DeleteIn my experience, a 'one-shot' is perfect for trying out a new rule system you don't know you will or won't like yet: try it out for a session or perhaps two before you commit to a full length campaign. Same thing with a new campaign setting: I might like the Eberron setting, but would like to try it out for a one-shot before I fully commit to an entire campaign in that setting.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that struck me about your thoughts here is how circular the explanation is.
ReplyDeleteLike... you're okay with, or even invigorated by, con games because you know going in that they're supposed to be short visits. But you can't bring yourself to appreciate them at home because it's "more like choosing to live somewhere."
So why not just choose to do a short visit when you're at home with your friends? As another commenter pointed out, one-shots are great for testing out a new game or setting -- or even just for a change of pace every once in a while.
Now I'm not saying that changing one's point of view or reflexive emotions is as easy as poking your finger into your ear to flip a switch; habits are habits for a reason. But if the only reason you can't enjoy short games at home is because of what you expect from a home game, it does stand to reason that you could in fact get a lot of enjoyment from them as long as you manage to examine and shift your expectations.